beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or added as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant is as follows: (a) the land category of each of the instant real estate was changed from the “B” to the “Do” around 1920; (b) around 1938, it was used as a road; and (c) according to Article 14 of the Joseon Road Decree, it was designated as a Gyeonggi Do Do Do Do Do Do Do
Since around 1938, the Defendant occupied each of the instant real estate as its owner’s intention, and completed the prescriptive acquisition.
B. Even if the State or a local government is unable to submit a document regarding the fact that the acquisition procedure of the pertinent land was followed, it cannot be readily concluded that the State or a local government occupied the relevant land with the knowledge that the cadastral record, etc. was destroyed by 625 pages or did not exist for any other reason, and that the State or a local government was registered as the owner in the cadastral record, etc., with the separate knowledge of the existence of another person. In light of the purpose and purpose of occupation, if it is deemed that the possibility that the State or the local government lawfully acquired the ownership after undergoing the procedure for acquiring public property at the time of the commencement of occupation cannot be ruled out, it is difficult to view that the State or the local government had proved that it occupied the land without permission by being aware of such circumstance without the legal requirements for the acquisition of ownership, and it cannot be said that the presumption of autonomous possession of the relevant land is reversed solely on the ground that the State or the local government did not submit a document about the procedure for acquiring the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da33541, Dec.